Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated.
Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members
of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if
you notice a post which violates our general rules.
Democracy Now! debate is starting, two on two
Submitted by BCS on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 7:21am
Amy Goodman introduced it as a "national exclusive." Yeah, Amy, you should be so proud. To no one's surprise I am sure, she leads with what hit the Pentagon and flight 93.
UPDATE: Video is here: http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2006/sept/video/dnB2006091...
Video & audio streams and transcript are near the top of this page: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
The debate starts somewhere around 10-15 minutes in.
»
- BCS's blog
- Login to post comments
Cool, thanks!
Cool, thanks!
Began horribly but Bermas is
Began horribly but Bermas is doing great with the War Games.
PM came off slightly better than LC.
I would say that PM came off better than LC. PM did bring up a few points that the LC folks need to address and LC may need to re-think their take on the Pentagon no-plane crash. The generator and fuel tank fire of WTC 7 was also another hit for PM. I think LC scored on the war games and WTC 1 & 2 explosions.
Let's get some perspective on this
Take few steps back people. What do we have here: the schills from
Popular Mechanics take on a couple of 20 somethings with their hiphop
911 conspiracy movies. This is soft ball writ large. This debate is
just a setup - its just more propaganda. Ignore it.
Loose Change has been pumped by the main-stream media as the main
force of the 9/11 truth movement.
They aren't.
To the extent that they are giving positive support to the movement
they deserve kudos. But I'm very concerned about them becoming the
figure heads of the 9/11 truth movement.
We need to focus on the experts: Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. Griffin, Gordon
Ross, Frank Legge and the many others (see st911.org). When the
schills take on these guys we are sure to see the cockroaches go
running.
Who Gains the Most
When ever a serious crime is being investigated, the first aspect that is looked at is who has the most to gain from the act of the crime. Usually it will give you a prime suspect. What did "Al Qaeda" have to gain from this crime? Well, let's look at what they got as a result: 22,000 dropped bombs, loss of control of opium production, removal from there home land, and hatred for there cause. It seems they gained nothing from this crime.
So, who did gain something from this crime?
Bermas just owned the crap
Bermas just owned the crap out of those yellow journalism assclowns. Dylan is doing a wicked job as well, go dudes!!!
I just hope they bring up WTC 7 before they're out of time
Amy is focusing on Pentagon & flight 93 still. Avery & Bermas are doing a great job though. They've hit on the Mineta testimony (Cheney stand down order) and wargames (including McKinney's asking of Rumsfeld & Myers!). Go boys!
just noticed goodman all
just noticed goodman all giddy in her talking with meigs.. hrm.
just tuning in, has it been on a while?
It started about 10 after,
It started about 10 after, right after headlines.
kudos to Bermas for steering
kudos to Bermas for steering the convo into why ANYTHING could have struck the Pentagon, and for focussing on the war games.
Looks like they're getting
Looks like they're getting caught in the trees.... There's only 20 minutes left in the show, and so far, no one - no one- has said the phrase "official complicity" or inside job or anything like it. In her intro, Amy acknowledges only that LC has an alternative theory of "what happened that day", not that it makes a case that the gov't was involved.
Now, they're talking about the hole in the Pentagon, and it's really boring.
"I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm calling you a liar."
Bermas to Miegs. Ha!
Top notch burn!
LOL
Meigs
is a stereotypical shill... and a nervous one at that, hilarious.
It's GREAT to see LC being played on DN.
Dylan needs to knock it off with the snickering.
Jason is kicking ass.
Yeah, the snickering doesn't help
Amy brought up WTC 7. I am mildly impressed.
bad order in facts discussion
Yeah, i am absolutely not impressed to see it as the last topic during the last 10 mins though.
Go guys, nail the bastards.
Go guys, nail the bastards.
there on to CD now..
there on to CD now..
Meigs just said everyone agrees on how the collapses happened..
there have been 3 different explanations from 3 different investigations..
pancake collapse (FEMA)
truss failure theory (NIST)
column failure theory (Silverstein)
how that constitutes 'everyone agrees' i dunno.
A real disaster. The show
A real disaster. The show was a tour through physical oddities only, discussions of holes, plane parts, bombs, etc., but in the end, no one said - official complicity, inside job - although Dylan said it in the intro, which I had missed. But there's no discussion of the interests involved, the why, the wherefores, the role of the ISI, the FBI investigations squashed, you name it. Amy did a typical gatekeeper job of focusing on collateral stuff, things that we can't PROVE anything about: Flights 77 and 93.
I posted a note the other day saying that Dylan should address the bigger issues invovled and not get trapped in the engineering argument with these guys. I think the LC guys were nervous, and they were going real fast, so even the good info - Mineta's testimony and its deletion from the official record - got lost, because they didn't or couldn't "connect the dots."
hell no
A disaster? I don't think so.
No way, you can't call it a
No way, you can't call it a "disaster". They kicked a lot of ass.
I'm sorry, but anyone not
I'm sorry, but anyone not already skeptical of the official story would not have been convinced.
Mostly, IMHO, because Amy framed the debate in such a way that the LC guys couldn't tackle:
1. Background: has anything like this really happened before? They could've talked about Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., which addresses that underlying question that a lot of people can't get over: would our government do this to us? Yeah, and they've done it lots of times before.
2. Why, i.e. interests: Geopolitics, Reichstag fire as trigger for war and dictatorship, the rush for oil, the operational linkages between allies in that rush for oil and the 9/11 op - i.e., Pakistan, Bush family. Or any other solid argument for a motive you would like to make, but which the show simply did not address.
These are just examples.
So most people unsure about this - IMHO would probably end up saying, "gosh, a bunch of videos, arguments about whether a noise is really a bomb going off, about where plane wreckage should be, temperatures: Is that all there is? Bah, these conspiracy people need to get a life."
We need to talk about things we can prove - we can't PROVE a damned thing about flights 77 and 93 because the evidence is in the hands of the feds - and about motives with billions upon billions of dollars driving them.
Dylan did such a good intro to WTC7
that Agent Meigs had to bring up Holocasut denial... pathetic lol
Holocaust denial AND creationism
I'll forgive Avery's & Bermas' snickering at that one; it was well deserved.
indeed
that one should have had a laugh track on it... sick
well, yeah, avery is jewish
I'd snicker too it's just ridiculous, just as it is to say odigo warning its users is anti-semetic and an urban myth when any reasonable amount of google-fu will return you the haaretz article
Is that it?
Is that it?
Good job, boys!
You kicked that liar's ass... thank you.
Have an excellent day.
I don't think that went very
I don't think that went very well. They spent most of the time arguing about the most controversial physical evidence and/or theories. The boys did the best they could under the circumstances but seldom managed to interject points unrelated to these controversial claims. Bermas' mention of the war games and the Mineta testimony are two notable exceptions.
Amy Goodman's a cow. She framed this debate in the worst possible way.
They did great
Amy was obviously on the shill side of things but it seemed to me that she was impressed by the LC boys by the end of the segment. They talked about building 7 and the shill response was hilariously pathetic.
Anyway, your analysis of it could be the basis for the next campaign on DemocracyNow! Demand that Amy give equal time to non physical evidence based complaints, ie a segment with Paul Thompson and the Jersey Girls and Press for Truth.